The American Geophysical Union (AGU) have released this statement on Climate Change:
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system – including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons – are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956-2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change – an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade – is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and-if sustained over centuries-melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
Human Impacts on ClimateAdopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007
Marc Morano’s response:
“The AGU Board issued a statement on climate change without putting it to a vote of the group’s more than 50,000 members. Its sweeping claims, drafted by nine committee members, rely heavily on long term computer model projections, cherry-picking of data and a one-sided view of recent research. As with the recent statements by the AMS and the NAS, this is the product of a small circle of scientists who all share the same point of view, and who failed to put their statement to a vote of the AGU members on whose behalf they now claim to speak. As such it amounts to nothing more than a restatement of the opinion of a small group, rather than a consensus document.”
Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
But wait on – isn’t Morano against consensus? You know Galileo – only takes one person – blah blah.
Perhaps unless you a member of the illustrious 400 + “x” and growing ? But no point in asking them as they all believe in different things?
Anyway following Morano’s logic, do we care what a minor rump of the Works Committee thinks. Shouldn’t they put it to a committee vote and go with the consensus? Wouldn’t want to be dismissed as unrepresentative swill or some ill considered minority opinion.
What Marc Morano points to is the lack of scientific consensus and it isn’t a belief Luke, it’s the lack of evidence that is the crucial test and the crunch is the statistically indistinguishable “global” temperatures since 2001.
AGW hypothesis has been falsified but that doesn’t wash with the dogmatic, so little more need be stated.
And of course, Marc Morano asked all of his 400… How many did you ask Marc?
Louis, is it like the lack of scientific consensus of Plate Tectonics or the geological timescale?
I still keep forgetting Louis is incapable of reading.
And was that the word “statistical” being used for a cherry pick. Must be the geologists view of statistical – 2 holes and you have a 3D map.
And moving onto other dead horses like abiotic oil etc. I note the latest New Scientist has an article on over-estimation of global coal reserves. Would have thought it was infinite from your advocacy.
Hey Paul,
How would Marc Morano know how they made their decision? Did he ask them what their process is?
It’s hilarious that a PR spokesperson would be considered more credible than the AGU. It really is a joke.
Marc is just doing his job and serving his masters by casting seeds of doubt. You can’t fault him for trying, but to actually consider his opinion useful when he hasn’t even studied science is absolutely hilarious.
This thread and Marc Morano’s efforts of late have been about counting numbers of scientists who subscribe to what is popularly known as the consensus on global warming as espoused by the IPCC and Al Gore (who were recently jointly awarded a Nobel Prize for their efforts).
This is the topic of discussion and if the thread continues instead to defame Marc and others I will start randomly deleting posts … there is always the option of banning IPs.
Is anything I said not true Jennifer?
So you support the use of lists of unknown quality then Jen? Do you have an independent review on the quality of his list or is that not necessary? And it’s OK for Morano to defame the IPCC scientists or the AGU processes with no return comment expected? Would we term that bias?
And how has he been defamed exactly? We’re rebutting his logic and methods. Is Morano now above comment. He’s making the political debate running on consensus and quality of scientists. What he’s trying to achieve overall is pretty transparent.
The bottomline is that Louis can read and Marc can count and I would like a return to the thread topic.
Well Louis doesn’t appear to be able to read as he fails to read any of references provided to answer his questions or make comment upon them. Too much on this blog of baldly stating “there is no evidence” with ZERO backup. So I thought this was “an evidence based blog”.
As for new broom 2008 blog standards a commentator invited us to get stuffed just the other day. It seems to have been left. Why is that?
Paul says he doesn’t want the blog to be an echo chamber for one side of the debate.
I have tried to start some discussions on a number of occasions in the last 48 hours but very hard to get anyone out of soapbox mode and have some discourse.
It appears that terms like alarmist and Marxist can be handed out with impunity but denialist is a four letter word.
As for the topic – I assume it’s Morano’s proposition that an all-hands consensus vote from the AGU is necessary and that the current statement is inadequate. I thought that’s what we were debating. But his stated position for vindicating this is in itself cherry picked.
It appears to be Morano’s personal political opinion and does not represent a majority view of the Public Works Committee. So on the logic of his now demanded consensus why should we listen?
Do you yourself Jen wish to make a debating contribution here.
Luke, you missed the post where Jen advised if you want a blog about science you need to go elsewhere. She even provided a link – very grateful. From what I could gather, the blog is about interpretation, politics and all that jazz. No need to debate the logic, just state it with authority.
Well I’m outa here.
It’s a lame blog.
Luke,
I am interested to know whether or not the AGU has represented its members in the above statement or not and whether they should/needed to put such a statement to the vote as suggested by Marc Morano.
Is there some precedence for this sort of thing?
Marc did not put his list of 400 to a vote but did provide quotes from the 400 to back his claims.
Roger Pielke Sr commented on the the “New York Times” science blog that covered the AGU statement here:
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/24/comment-on-andy-revkins-new-york-times-weblog-dot-earth/
“Marc did not put his list of 400 to a vote but did provide quotes from the 400 to back his claims. ”
As has already been demonstrated.
The 400 includes people who have no expertise in the area, and know no more about the topic than I do.
It has included people who did not wish to be included.
It has used selective quoting.
It has misrpresented the credentials of people.
Is “Dr” John McLean the same John McLean who posts here but does not have a doctorate?
SJT – Check out the ‘expertise’ of IPCC contributors. I’m sure a PhD in Urban Planning is very useful for working out climate sensitivity to CO2.
The ‘400 list’ is based on expressed opinions – ‘skeptic’ is a word used by alarmists to ‘pigeon hole’ people, who question scientific claims.
To SJT:
Come on, stop the silliness. “No expertise?” Why don’t you sit down and read the Senate 400 plus (and growing) report. They are just as qualified as UN IPCC scientists.
See these reports for details on IPCC credentials: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-f rom-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6702 and see: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-f rom-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-7365
What people who did not want to be included? One person? George Waldenberger?! Got any more names? BTW: Waldenberger never responded to multiple emails or voicemail. It was never confirmed that it was Waldenbeger as the actual author of the email to the Senate. You attempt to discredit well over 400 scientists because you think ONE scientist may or may not have requested to come off? You need to rethink your criticism of the Senate report. It is so inconsequential.
Selective quoting? You can not only read the full entry of each scientist, but you can follow the links to the full source material from where the quotes came from. How many other reports or news outlets let you do that.
Misrepresented credentials? Who of John McLean? His description is accurate in the report now and there is even a notion that it was changed. (Check it out) That is more than the NY Times does. So you point to one title and somehow now the whole report “misrepresented” credentials of scientists? Do you have anymore examples? Or is McLean’s description your only excitement?
Please make a more concerted effort to find fault with the report. That is all I am responding on this for now. Enjoy!
Thanks
Marc Morano
Full Senate Report of 400 plus dissenting scientists here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
BTW:
Here is the full text of the debunking of the AGU ‘consensus statemet’ at the New York Times website. Read the comments following this on the NYT website, quite entertaining.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/earth-scientists-express-rising-concern-over-warming/#comment-8596
In addition, in the interests of full info, below is the letter I wrote to George Waldenberger about his inclusion in the Senate 400 plus (and growing) report.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-7365
I have not confirmed that George Waldenberger is indeed really the author of the note you reference. But I did send the below note to Waldenberger on Sunday. It is self-explanatory.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Marc Morano’s email responding to email purportedly from Iowa (recently moved to Tulsa) Meteorologist George Waldenberger. Email sent on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM ET.
—– Original Message —–
From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
To: George Waldenberger
Sent: Sun Jan 13 00:48:05 2008
Subject: Re:
Dear George,
Thank you for you note. We currently have you in our Senate Report under the criteria of scientists who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus” on man-made global warming. The report does not allege you believe we should “ignore” climate change, rather it simply states you “expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007.”
That assertion in the report is followed by a long series of your quotes in which you state in part (your full section from the report is below), “The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air.” In the linked article (Sioux City Journal – April 11, 2007), you also opine about the intensity of hurricanes and global warming and state, “And that’s an item of debate as well.” You bluntly assert that both the hurricane connection to warming and CO2’s impact on global temperature are still “debatable.”
You clearly articulate that you do not agree with former Vice President Al Gore (who claims we face an urgent “climate crisis”) or the UN IPCC (where multiple UN leaders say the climate debate is completely over – UN leaders say it is ‘completely immoral’ to question the IPCC ‘consensus.’ See: http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/ 2007/05/10/analysis_un_calls_climate_debate_over/6480/
And the UN says it is ‘criminally irresponsible’ the urgency of global warming. See: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2 007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm )
The Senate report further quotes you stating: “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?”
The fact is, you recognize that there is a “debate.” Gore and the IPCC leaders do not recognize the need for the “debate” about climate that you so eloquently lay out.
Your statements about these climate feedbacks further separate you from Gore and the UN IPCC views. You assert that CO2’s stimulating impact on plant growth can be a negative feedback which directly limits CO2 levels. This is a significant point which runs directly counter to man-made climate fears.
Indeed, many of the latest research trends indicate that plants are absorbing far more CO2 than IPCC figures anticipate, partly perhaps because deforestation rates have been overestimated. Here’s an article that supports your thoughtful views on the subject: Excerpt: Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds. “Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”
Full Report here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uol-nce0 10708.php
Also, please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading. The reader is not looking at your name on a long list, but actually reading your words and understanding all of your intended subtleties and caveats about climate change. The report even quotes you saying man-made global warming “seems to be a reasonable argument.”
Again, I thank you for writing me. If you would like to further discuss, please respond or call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Communications Dir. (Minority)
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Below is your full entry from December 20, 2007 Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Iowa Meteorologists George Waldenberger and Gary Shore expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007. “Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn’t really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming,” Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. “It has over the past 40 years. The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air,” Waldenberger explained. Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. “There’s definitely global warming,” Shore said on April 11, 2007. “No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we’re doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows,” Shore explained. Waldenberger further commented, “But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that’s why we’re actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you’re talking about the greenhouse effect, that’s very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.” “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?” he added. (LINK )
)
End note from Morano.
# # #
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committtee
— Posted by Marc Morano
The vast majority are nowhere near domain experts so it matters little if it’s 400 or 4000 – a totally transparent stunt that’s great for the cheer squad while the rest of of us just roll our eyes. How many creationists in the list?
The interest in McLean was that it was he that made a big ruckus about qualifications. Which ends up being most amusing under the circumstances. So it’s most relevant.
In the interests of full information, below is the full note I sent to Waldenberger about his inclusion in the Senate report.
I have not confirmed that George Waldenberger is indeed really the author of the note you reference. But I did send the below note to Waldenberger. It is self-explanatory.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Marc Morano’s email responding to email purportedly from Iowa (recently moved to Tulsa) Meteorologist George Waldenberger. Email sent on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM ET.
—– Original Message —–
From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
To: George Waldenberger
Sent: Sun Jan 13 00:48:05 2008
Subject: Re:
Dear George,
Thank you for you note. We currently have you in our Senate Report under the criteria of scientists who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus” on man-made global warming. The report does not allege you believe we should “ignore” climate change, rather it simply states you “expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007.”
That assertion in the report is followed by a long series of your quotes in which you state in part (your full section from the report is below), “The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air.” In the linked article (Sioux City Journal – April 11, 2007), you also opine about the intensity of hurricanes and global warming and state, “And that’s an item of debate as well.” You bluntly assert that both the hurricane connection to warming and CO2’s impact on global temperature are still “debatable.”
You clearly articulate that you do not agree with former Vice President Al Gore (who claims we face an urgent “climate crisis”) or the UN IPCC (where multiple UN leaders say the climate debate is completely over – UN leaders say it is ‘completely immoral’ to question the IPCC ‘consensus.’ See: http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/ 2007/05/10/analysis_un_calls_climate_debate_over/6480/
And the UN says it is ‘criminally irresponsible’ the urgency of global warming. See: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2 007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm )
The Senate report further quotes you stating: “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?”
The fact is, you recognize that there is a “debate.” Gore and the IPCC leaders do not recognize the need for the “debate” about climate that you so eloquently lay out.
Your statements about these climate feedbacks further separate you from Gore and the UN IPCC views. You assert that CO2’s stimulating impact on plant growth can be a negative feedback which directly limits CO2 levels. This is a significant point which runs directly counter to man-made climate fears.
Indeed, many of the latest research trends indicate that plants are absorbing far more CO2 than IPCC figures anticipate, partly perhaps because deforestation rates have been overestimated. Here’s an article that supports your thoughtful views on the subject: Excerpt: Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds. “Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”
Full Report here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uol-nce0 10708.php
Also, please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading. The reader is not looking at your name on a long list, but actually reading your words and understanding all of your intended subtleties and caveats about climate change. The report even quotes you saying man-made global warming “seems to be a reasonable argument.”
Again, I thank you for writing me. If you would like to further discuss, please respond or call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Communications Dir. (Minority)
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Below is your full entry from December 20, 2007 Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Iowa Meteorologists George Waldenberger and Gary Shore expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007. “Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn’t really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming,” Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. “It has over the past 40 years. The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air,” Waldenberger explained. Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. “There’s definitely global warming,” Shore said on April 11, 2007. “No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we’re doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows,” Shore explained. Waldenberger further commented, “But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that’s why we’re actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you’re talking about the greenhouse effect, that’s very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.” “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?” he added. (LINK )
)
End note from Morano.
# # #
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committtee
— Posted by Marc Morano
Marc,
you have a marine engineer on that list. You have Louis Hissink, and Jennifer. What expert contribution can they make? They know no more about the topic than I do, and I’ll even go out on a limb here and say that at least a couple of them a far lot less.
The AGU (as reported above) opens with “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming”.
The climate is “clearly out of balance” (what does that mean?).
Are they still wedded to Mann’s ‘hockey stick’?:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/images/4411032a-i1.0.jpg
They go on to claim that the climate is “changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural [Luke please note] and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century”.
The “natural” state of the climate is more or less constant (in “balance”) and the only possible explanation for the present unprecedented change (warming) is human GHG.
Both these assertions (to a non-scientist) seem hopelessly unscientific.
They then follow that well-worn path of extrapolating the temperature trend of the past 30 years into the distant future based on these (to be generous) bold assertions.
How do they get away with it?
OK SJT, You better tell us who you are and what your qualifications are. Come on, show your hand!
SJT
Both Jennifer and I have post graduate degrees in Science, and thus assumed to be proficient in the scientific method.
Your only proficiency is in ad hominems 101 (luke is still in kindergarten).
So either fess up or be considered a typical socialist.
Chrisgo,
Yes, I also thought it strange to open with the comment ‘out of balance’. I tend to see the world/earth as ever changing.
Good to see those 2008 blog standards improving the debate.
I have done a communications engineering course for two years, till I decided I liked working with computers more. I have since worked in the computing field in various fields since.
My course involved two years of maths and one year of physics and chemistry. Which makes me about as qualified in climate research as the majority of the names on that list. I, however, don’t see myself as an authority on the subject, although I am happy to put my two bobs worth in.
SJT,
Thank you.
But you never graduated and that might be a problem for you?
“SJT – Check out the ‘expertise’ of IPCC contributors. I’m sure a PhD in Urban Planning is very useful for working out climate sensitivity to CO2.”
An urban planner is useless at working out climate sensitivity to CO2, but he/she wasn’t there to do that. The IPCC is also trying to work out the effects of climate change on our society. An urban planner would be very useful at helping them out there, and someone who is an expert in working out CO2 sensitivity is going to be useless.
“SJT
Both Jennifer and I have post graduate degrees in Science, and thus assumed to be proficient in the scientific method.”
I would hope so, but it appears neither of you know about the advanced physics and mathematics used in climate research, and advanced climate research itself. So you are both in the same boat as me.
I have a Dip Comp Programming from University, and some years of studying Sociology, Statistics and Psychology as well. When it comes to education, I am more of an omnivore. What that gives me is a broader outlook at issues such as this than you seem to be capable of, and an understanding of why ‘denialism’ is such an important issue.
“But you never graduated and that might be a problem for you?”
I don’t know if it’s a problem. There has always been plenty of work available for me, I own my own home and car.
If you are referring to the science, I know I understand radiation better than you do. The basic errors in comprehension you make about the physics behind CO2 would be embarassing if you could be made aware of them.
Here is a free, online textbook (it’s not quite complete yet). It goes into the physics of climate. Could you point out any errors the author has made?
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
I am happy to admit I don’t understand much about it, but I am also prepared to admit my level of understanding and defer to the experts where necessary.
SJT
“My course involved two years of maths and one year of physics and chemistry.”
Your knowledge is what commonly described as “dangerous” big enough to get you into trouble, too little to get you out of it.
I find the internet has a lot to answer for, for providing easy access to heavily cut down versions of scientific, statistical etc. information which makes a lot of them think that’s all there is to science. Sorry they are wrong.
And the first two years of maths and one year of physics and chemistry, is nowadays just about catching up on what was missed in high school.
Seems to me you have a chip on your shoulders and a political agenda to push as well.
What has having a good job and wealth to do with intelligence?
Remember “Data is not information, Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom!”
The SJT discussion is irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if he’s a short order cook.
He’s not making the running here or seeking international publicity. He’s commenting on a public forum.
The issue is whether the 400 plus “x” in the Morano list are credible domain experts. The vast majority ARE NOT. They are simply people with degrees and careers.
If the list was for something in medicine – like oncology or if it were in Jen’s field – taking a stab – host specificity in control agents for rubbervine would we give them any serious attention.
No.
It’s a shoddy stunt. And for Morano to clog this discussion with an enormous discourse on what 1/400th i.e. Waldenberger did or did not say is utterly tedious and a rather poor attempt to create some vague legitimacy to a list where it seems he has coopted some rather than sought permission. But this is trivia compared to the issue of domain knowledge.
How many of these 400 actually understand the intricate detail of CO2 radiative physics or contemporary climate science enough to be considered an authoritative list by a prominent US government committee. That is the point !
Eli Rabbett got 20. He invited others to make their own cut.
Louis,
You claim you have a post graduate degree in science, yet you claim subduction is “mechanically impossible” and that there are problems with the geological timescale. What sort of scientist are you? And why are you calling people Socialists?
On topic, did anyone here read anything presented at the Fall AGU conference? Jennifer? Pretty sure it’s available online. Seems they are fairly united on the AGW hypothesis, and Marc (if he actually read anything) would know that at that conference there was free discussion after the presentations. I am pretty sure the AGU members know the position of the AGU. This wasn’t a surprise, it wasn’t an announcement out of the blue. In fact it’s pretty much the same as the position they said they had in 2003. Anyone who had a big problem with it could have complained then.
Marc Morano, you are misrepresenting the IPCC with regards to ‘debate’. They are still debating the effects of AGW. They are still debating the forcing values (that’s why they change). There are numerous debates going on. It’s just that you missed the start and have been left behind. And with regards to Al Gore, who cares what he says?
“I am happy to admit I don’t understand much about it, but I am also prepared to admit my level of understanding and defer to the experts where necessary.”
So what qualifies you to determine who in fact is an expert and knows what they’re talking about?
It is really funny to see certain commentators in this thread.Completely miss the parallel with the revelations of the IPCC list of experts.
Luke your objections are so lame I wonder if you even care?
Again Sunset – again your contribution is devastating in its intellectual depth. The IPCC has some very serious domain experts in its consultancy – not flakes. There is no parallel of the 400 with the IPCC contributors – not that the IPCC is 100% perfect – but we’re not talking 10% of a list with Morano – we’re talking 90% plus. Morano’s list is a stunt and has been given the lack of attention it deserves despite his best efforts to promote it. Get some serious people with serious arguments, make some positive contributions instead of carping and someone might actually listen. Morano’s list only appeals to the cheer squad.
Luke, can you provide us with a link to the IPCC contributors list so we can test your claim that there is no parallel … 10%, 90% etcetera? Please.
Well Jen – for starters try http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf starts page 955 for authors. Enjoy !
The test is not whether people have many degrees, are famous, clever or are trained in the sciences. If we’re after expert opinion – are they qualified in and practising in contemporary climate science, meteorology or closely related aspects. Biogeochemistry would be one of those related aspects.
You can then move through the other working group chapters (same place above) and decide whether they have consulted and utilised other domain experts in the impacts of climate change on biology, ecology, agriculture, economy, society, carbon cycles, greenhouse inventory etc.
You wouldn’t expect an undertaking of this magnitude to be 100% perfect but it’s a question whether it’s 90/10 or 10/90.
Eli Rabett has already reported his own distillation on the famous 400. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/dessler-20-eli-spent-some-time-going.html
“Your knowledge is what commonly described as “dangerous” big enough to get you into trouble, too little to get you out of it.
I find the internet has a lot to answer for, for providing easy access to heavily cut down versions of scientific, statistical etc. information which makes a lot of them think that’s all there is to science. Sorry they are wrong.
And the first two years of maths and one year of physics and chemistry, is nowadays just about catching up on what was missed in high school.
Seems to me you have a chip on your shoulders and a political agenda to push as well.
What has having a good job and wealth to do with intelligence?
Remember “Data is not information, Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom!””
I did my study about 30 years ago. Believe, it wasn’t catching up on VCE, it was such stuff as three dimensional calculus.
I have been quoting “Remember “Data is not information, Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom!” to people for over twenty years now. It’s well worth remembering.
I don’t pretend to be anything more than what I am. What amuses me is that I can spot errors in basic science that people like Louis just can’t understand, such as his wondering at how brownian motion is going to transmit energy into space. (something must be doing it, otherwise the earth would be at the temperature of the sun by now…)
Morano’s list is all about politicking and rhetoric. As Luke says, there are maybe 20 scientists on that list who are qualified to make an opinion on the matter. The rest are no more qualified to be referred to as experts than I am. I, however, am happy to acknowledge that.
What does worry me is that I appear to know more about the topic than some of the so-called experts who have topics posted here.
Mr. T,
I posted in the other thread the summary of a geological conference in which most there concluded that subduction was mechanically impossible, among other matters.
As for the use of the term “socialist”, my useage of it would be deemed accurate in its context.
The principal reason I am opposed to climate alarmism is not over quibbling about temperature trends determined from complex data manipulation but because this movement is essentially a political one in which the goal is to micromanage us by prescribing how much CO2 we are allowed to emit. It is essentially the means by which an Eco-totalitarian state is being slowly imposed on us.
Climate fearists have enormous taxpayer funded budgets, tens of billions of dollars per annum, so its big government, led by the socialists running the UN, that is the issue. And yes, I am a capitalist of the Austrian tradition.
That is why I am a climate sceptic but cognisant of the fact that it is dangerous to be right on matter about which government is wrong.
I have already survived one episode when some academic wanted me sacked for promoting politically incorrect views on global warming.
SJT,
I am not wondering how Brownian motion transmits energy into space but it is you who seems to have misunderstood – so get your facts right please.
SJT
Here is a comprehensive paper demonstrating by physics a few very inconvenient facts
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Reference is http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
That is what I base my science on.
Louis if you spent less time banging on tediously about reds under the bed and more time on the science we’d be a lot further advanced.
And it would be good if you decided to stand your ground for once instead of doing runners just when it gets interesting.
Gotta start somewhere… maybe you’re a genius, but despite our best wishes most of us don’t actually get to play Galileo. It’s called delusions of grandeur or megalomania.
Now if I said the average temperature of the Earth was 1000C or -300C I wouldn’t expect you to believe me. If the temperature at Fremantle is 24C and in Perth 26C – in between is unlikely to be 40C isn’t it or -10C. And we do know that regionally some time periods like “winter” are regionally colder than “summer” or even some weeks “heatwaves” are exceptionally warm across a region. So of course we can calculate a bloody average to distinguish these periods with a bit more precision. How utterly stupid that you can’t calculate an average – it defies your experience of the world. (unless you’re on drugs of course).
So you’re a physics rebel by the looks. Let’s see where the bouncing ball starts.
So do you believe in the Stephan-Boltzmann equation?
And do you have an agreed or working number for the Solar Constant?
Let’s go through step by step.
Luke, that link is to authors of published papers cited by the IPCC – not to member of a consensus?
SJT, Member of the IPCC may be working from our best understanding of physics, but it doesn’t necesssarily mean they have come to the correct conclusion.
PS Luke,
What about putting together a list along the lines of Marc Morano? Scientists who have commented publicly on the issue indicating that they are broadly supportive of the IPCC findings. James Hanson would be there. Tim Flannery. Would you include Al Gore? Who else? Gavin Schmidt. Can we get a few names down here?
Ian Lowe, David Jones,
Jennifer; there is a real danger your blog has become a mere outpost of the MM Society. Most AGW science plodders won’t show up here cause they don’t believe for a moment they have too. That leaves a very small bunch of diehards chipping in, based on a bit of practical knowledge in one discipline or another to defend the latest climate discoveries.
I’m reminded of some discussion back at the start of the industrial revolution. We hope can imagine the conversations between the old sailors and promoters of the new steam boats. Note; I have a soft spot for wind power.
All technology has its detractors. At the dawn of digital electronics I was convinced sampling rates ruined our recordings and their reproduction however I was forgetting the deliberate visual deception built into our B&W TV sets. Today the refresh speed of a household LCD screen is likely to be only 2-8 ms. These data rates depend on good physics.
SJT discuses the “diploma” level once so common in the post trade education drive we had to have outside the building industry after WW2. A lot of us didn’t have time as major industry expanded to complete a course. Plant commissioning required a lightweight box of tools, instruments, air ticket and a pocket book full of supplier’s phone numbers to speed up the design mods on the run.
Btw I worked in the service of many disciplines and that included live apparatus from DC to light, chemicals, gases liquids and so on. IMO; MM Inc works with third and forth hand experience from anywhere.
Jen – I would not include Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe – their opinion is interesting for a read and probably great supporters but they are not domain experts (IMO). If they feel the need to do some advocacy well it’s a free country so go for it.
Would include Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen as they are practicing and publishing. David Jones you would consider. You would consider Graeme Pearman and Barrie Pittock from being fairly recent practitioners.
But it seems that if you are not supportive of the IPCC findings one does a dummy spit like Landsea and Reiter and resign from the IPCC Panel. Usually with much publicity, conspiracy theories and blog ado.
So presumably the vast majority of the coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing authors as documented by my link would be supportive. (Jen – the list of papers is in a bibliography at the end of each section – e.g. page 217 here http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf )
You would notice famous Australian scientists like CSIRO’s Nathan Bindoff, Wenju Cai, Josep Canadell, John Church, Martin Dix, Paul Fraser, Kathy McInnes, Mike Raupach, Stephen Rintoul, Leon Rotstayn, Ram Suppiah, Penny Whetton, and from other institutions Julie Arblaster, Neville Nicholls, Andy Pitman, Scott Power, and Will Steffen. And that’s just the Aussies.
And look they are a whole bunch of names not in the lime light that we hardly ever discuss – how about that?
But to do this properly we would have to contact each of them and ask them formally do they support the broad thrust of the IPCC findings just in case they’ve harbouring any resentments and about to do a dummy spit. 🙂 And do they wish to be on an anti-Morano list – I imagine many might be horrfied to be in such a pissing contest, preferring to let the IPCC document speak for itself.
Luke
as my previous post had nothing to do about reds und beds but a copy of the abstract of a physics paper, one must wonder whether you are a few spanners short of a toolbox.
“You would notice famous Australian scientists like CSIRO’s Nathan Bindoff, Wenju Cai, Josep Canadell, John Church, Martin Dix, Paul Fraser, Kathy McInnes, Mike Raupach, Stephen Rintoul, Leon Rotstayn, Ram Suppiah, Penny Whetton, and from other institutions Julie Arblaster, Neville Nicholls, Andy Pitman, Scott Power, and Will Steffen. And that’s just the Aussies.”
Do they have blogs though, Luke? It appears to be what is important these days.
“Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner”
There’s your problem, Louis. Nonentities tilting at windmills. They should read the paper I linked to, which is the current state of the science, and not attack the completely irrelevant fact that the ‘greenhouse’ effect does not work like a real greenhouse, which scientists have never claimed. It was just a convenient analogy, if flawed. I’ll let you into a little secret. Atoms aren’t really like little red balls, despite the lies they teach all the poor, deluded pupils at high school.
“SJT, Member of the IPCC may be working from our best understanding of physics, but it doesn’t necesssarily mean they have come to the correct conclusion.”
But if you were going to take action on an issue, would you go the basis of science as it is best understood, or would you go against it? Historically, you’re going to be right more often than not by going with the scientists. The proof of that is all around you.
“So either fess up or be considered a typical socialist.” –
“As for the use of the term “socialist”, my useage of it would be deemed accurate in its context.”
Now stop dodging about Louis – asked you some very basic questions? Any answer or just obfuscation.
SJT – I don’t think blogs feature heavily with our unknown sceince soldiers – they’re more likely onto the next part of the science story.
Luke, You have provided how many names so far? I think there are 20 – mostly Aussies as you explain. Surely there is a comprehensive list somewhere?
SJT,
I look around and I can’t see a climate crisis. I see there has been a lot of rain lately. I’ve been up in the Blue Mountains for the last few months and the locals tell me its cooler this summer than it has been over the last few summers.
I look at the geological record and I note that climate has always changed.
I have studied the distribution of plant and animals species and I have noted that climate is only one factor that can impact distribution and abundance.
Yes, Jennifer, you have just demonstrated why you are not qualified to offer an informed opinion on climate change.
I have given an example listing some notable Australians. You can count the other working group reports and the other non-Aussies in WGI if you’re keen. It’s all there as indicated. I don’t wish to make a list and have it named “Luke’s list”.
You can cut and paste the author lists from all the Working Group reports if your really need to.
What do think it will tell you Jen? That the IPCC has a bunch of domain experts writing their reports.
That Morano is making a serious counter to that expertise with his “list”?
Jen of course climate has always changed – and many many species have perished in those changes. Big changes have been associated with major extinction events. But have we had a major global change with 6 billion humans, an international money system, and powerful nation states with nuclear weapons? Given our Australian predisposition to drought I would have thought the MWP droughts would have been of key interest to you. Botulism is also natural you know and it’s been around before too.
Of course there is no current climate crisis in the global sense. But there are harbingers of change that indicate the path.
If we do not learn from history perhaps we are condemned to repeat it ? Santayana.
Of course it’s cooler – it’s a significant La Nina. I’m still fascinated that you might expect climate change would somehow quickly extinguish all climate variation and quasi-periodic oscillations.
Luke, SJT,
I am somewhat perplexed at both your very definitive responses to my simple response to SJT’s simple comment:
“But if you were going to take action on an issue, would you go the basis of science as it is best understood, or would you go against it? Historically, you’re going to be right more often than not by going with the scientists. The proof of that is all around you.”
What proof and where? And what exactly are we taking “action on” and is that to stop climate change or to achieve something else?
And I must say I am more than a little amused by SJTs overwhelming belief in scientists as usually being correct and the consensus as most often being correct – particularly given the incredible politication of climate science and environmental science more generally over the last decade or so.
I would highly recommend a recent book by Aynsley Kellow on the subject. It has the title: Science and Public Policy – the Virtuous Corruption of Virual Environmental Science. And was published by Edward Elgar Publishing in 2007. Prof Kellow is the head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania.
The book is very much about the apparent recent corruption of ‘environmental science’ and climate science through political attachment to noble causes.
Luke,
As regards your response to my suggestions regarding that list. Well, I think you are continuing to avoid the real issue which is we don’t really know how many scientists who contribute to the IPCC process really agree with Al Gore’s idea of a climate crisis etcetera, etcetera.
Marc Morano has shown that there are a lot of skeptical scientists when it comes to the issue – both with qualifications in meteorology and in other related disciples e.g. like me in the biological sciences. I say related, because much of the work of the IPCC has been about potential impacts on fauna and flora – the abundance and distribution of plant and animal species.
I just received the following note which would suggest that only about 12% of the IPCC working group members –a group Luke has made continual mention of — actually fit Luke or SJT’s criteria of being expert enough to comment on climate change. This is a very similar percentage to the 10% Luke considered expert-enough in the Marc Morano list…
“Another aspect to consider involves the participants in the consensus game and who they identify as an acceptable consensus; the good people by their definition. The answer, for the public and most politicians at least, is the 2500 members of the IPCC.
“Even if we take the raw divisions within that total and assume they [members of the IPCC working group] are all scientists, that is ignore the bureaucrats, we have 600 in Working Group I and 1900 in Working Groups II and III. As I understand it, the 1900 do not study the climate science. They accept as a given the findings of Working Group I and then study the impact this will have.
“In a wonderful circular argument their work then becomes proof of the consensus figure of 2500. In fact only 24% actually participate in Working Group I the climate science portion of the report, the remaining 76%, which includes economists, biologists and a myriad other disciplines are not academically qualified by the definition used by those who attack the Senate 400 list. You can narrow the numbers even more if you consider only the 308 who worked on the final report of Working Group I, so it is actually about 12% who meet the consensus criteria.”
To say we’re avoiding the issue is VERY disappointing.
Not happy Jen !
You just want someone else to put up another list without that being youself.
You are very heavy on the contrarian but very light on the other side. Very little research. Now you could have found the IPCC author list in five minutes yourself. How hard was it?
Who cares what Al Gore thinks really. And many think he hasn’t got it all right – happy? But is government policy in Australia being advised by Al Gore or AGO, CSIRO, BoM and Garnaut etc. This fixation on Gore is a ruse argument and a total distraction. I don’t look him up for source material – does anyone serious – or is it just a hangover from the Clinton administration. Didn’t get enough whinging in then.
I have only heard Morano mainly going on about AGW is not happening – so why go past Working Group One. If it’s not happening who cares about the other Working Groups and the birds and bees. VERY FEW of his list have any contemporary experience in modern climate science, are practising and publishing.
He has a handful of domain experts that disagree with the AGW core science. And perhaps a few of them are creationists by the sound of it. If they’re peddling creationism I put a line through them.
Now fair dink and let’s stop mucking around – what do you reckon eh?
Do you reckon most of the WG1 authors support their chapters. I reckon yes otherwise they would have done a Landsea or a Reiter.
And have a Google on their publications and/or sus out the IPCC bibliographies – do you reckon these guys might know a few things and be active in their fields. I think yes.
So we’re going to compare the IPCC group to a bunch of blow-ins, retirees, unrelated fields and TV journalists. Piffle. You wouldn’t get 2 mins in any decent policy department peddling that sort of nonsense.
Now having said that – the AGW side is not perfect. But as Bazza has sagely reminded us on many occasions – but it’s about future risk and changing circumstances. Any Australian farmer is continually assessing climate risk.
Smart business and government are already on both climate variability and climate change and AGW. Smart farmers are already badgering researchers as to whether their seasonal forecasts have holes because the base probabilities have now changed.
All this guff about a “current climate crisis”, Al Gore, Hansen etc is not where the intelligent debate is – it’s a back water political argument.
If you really want to definitively know how many of the IPCC authors support the overall IPCC position is say the SPM document, well our good mate Morano should ask them formally. If he’s got the time to cobble together the famous 400 (even though it looks like he didn’t always ask them) he can do a list of supporting IPCC scientists for balance. Then one could examine their expertise in detail and exclude those or at least group those who do not have relevant expertise in specific areas.
And do you think you’ll be any the wiser after all that?
Louis,
that must have been a fascinating lecture series. Perhaps they discussed the age of the Earth as well?
I suppose it speaks volumes that you would overturn 50 years of well established geology in a few short lectures.
And to mistake science for politics is sad, I hope you can trust in science enough in the future that you can read papers without seeing political motivation.
Well take care Jen and Louis, hope you do well in whatever you do in life. Remember the more you obsess about political machinations the more you will see it. And this sadly will make objective analysis impossible as your view will be forever coloured by the fear of political manipulation and conspiracy.
Jen – as for the last comment added about 2,500 – well who cares. The IPCC said in some early 2007 press blurb there as 2,500 authors, contrib authors etc involved in the making of the reports. A lot of people. It’s you guys, commentators and the media that have gone hard about that as having some great symbolism. Heap big medicine 2,500.
I have said before that the actual number for core climate science is a lot smaller – why coz it’s complex science. Not many people REALLY know. What would you expect?
Give youself a test being on Morano’s list of skeptics – can you tell us how greenhouse is alleged to work at the quantum level (no Google peeking now ! 🙂 ). Wouldn’t expect you to (but you should).
2,500 ain’t a consensus – it’s just some number blowing around the blogosphere with special magical powers.
So does an intelligent person say “wow 2,500 scientists have written this – MUST be right – or what did they actually say”?
So if you want to get fair dinky di – rip into the Morano list and toss out all those not qualified, not publishing in the field, not active (sorry guys we still love the rest of you – don’t take it personally) – and see what you have. Eli Rabett did it and got twenty. I’d still have to bump off any creationists myself.
And where does that leave you? Any the wiser?
(Special thanks Marc Morano for taking us on some grand tour of famous persons who are cranky about AGW – as they say in policy in response to lengthy briefs – “Noted”).
“I just received the following note which would suggest that only about 12% of the IPCC working group members –a group Luke has made continual mention of — actually fit Luke or SJT’s criteria of being expert enough to comment on climate change. This is a very similar percentage to the 10% Luke considered expert-enough in the Marc Morano list…”
As Luke has said, that would be about the proportion required to do the heavy lifting in the WG1 report. However, a lot of the research is into the observed effects, so glaciologists and other specialists who have done research into the these areas, but are not climatologists, will also be counted. If they say that the rate of glacial melt, for example, has accelerated in recent years, then that is also an expert opinion that is worth noting even if they aren’t climatologists.
Ender
“So do you believe in the Stephan-Boltzmann equation?
And do you have an agreed or working number for the Solar Constant?
Let’s go through step by step.”
Sure thing so let’s start with are they relevant?
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=110#p618
Sigma (S-B constant) and energy terms actually cancel out quite nicely. In any case despite the fact that I used black body in the deliberations it’s just an easy way to get to Kirchoff’s Thermodynamic laws that states “when two bodies are in thermal equilibrium their absorptivity and emissivity are equal so the equilibrium temperature is the same regardless of colour”. Mind you there is no law that states that two bodies that are in motion relative to each other should ever reach such equilibrium.
“It’s a simple matter of observable fact that temperature difference not available energy drives observed heat transport. That is what the second law is all about.”
Lets see if I can get this right. The atmosphere makes things not so simple, since it effectively acts in a way similar to a trap door. The atmosphere is transparent to short wave radiation, not long wave radiation. That effectively ‘traps’ heat within the area of the earths atmosphere.
I say ‘traps’, but it does leak out eventually. The effect is to slow down the radiation of heat coming in and then leaving the earth. The end result is that the temperature of the earth will rise.
SJT
“That effectively ‘traps’ heat within the area of the earths atmosphere.”
The real question is how long it “traps” it for and given that there is about a 30 degree lag in the diurnal variation in temperature the atmosphere has a relaxation time constant of only a few hours. Real fact of the matter is that if you have even a smattering of quantum mechanics is you would know that even if the CO2 would emit or relax it’s excitation slowly the quenching by other atmospheric species occurs in time spans in the order of nano seconds thus warming the the atmosphere more than it would be by conduction and convection alone. The warmed air rises taking the heat to the tropopause where it is happily radiated through a wider window. It’s wider owing to the general lack of water vapour in the stratosphere. (N2 an O2 radiate at wave lengths far above that of the CO2 “trap” right down to extreme high radio frequency).
But N2 and O2 aren’t very effective GHGs, due to their molecular shape, so they don’t really enter into consideration.
The pressure does cause the troposphere to rise, but that also makes the ‘trapdoor’ thicker.
If you look at that diagram you like,
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/balanc3.jpg
Convection does not appear to be much of a factor compared to radiation.
SJT
“That effectively ‘traps’ heat within the area of the earths atmosphere.”
It is not a question of whether CO2 traps the heat but how long. Once a CO2 absorbs some IR in the 15m micron band that energy gets smeared within the order of nano-seconds to the other atmospheric species which will radiate that through inelastic collision at other wave lengths. Most of this will get blocked by water vapour but the energy gets lifted due to the thermal expansion eventually to the troposphere where it can radiate quite happily at those wavelengths through to space due to general lack of water in the stratosphere. This is perhaps an over simplified model but we know simply from diurnal lag of around 30 degrees of temperature to insolation that the time constant is only a few hours.
SJT
“Lets see if I can get this right.”
Not even relevant Luke was creating a little row about Stefan Boltzmann in that derivation I showed that is actually cancels out. It’s really standard textbook stuff that I’ve known for about 42 years not rocket science. It leads to an equilibrium temperature of avout 279K or ~6C the so called measured temperature is around 288 (it has changed little the past century) and the difference is due to the fact that the earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium because it does not behave like a black body rendering Stefan-Boltzmann constant irrelevant because it only applies to black bodies.
The fact that the atmosphere absorbs IR at certain wavelengths means it is not a black body either and once again Stephan-
Boltzmann is broken.
Do you get that?
“It is not a question of whether CO2 traps the heat but how long.”
If you look at that diagram again, it doesn’t matter if a lot of that heat is then sent back to the earth, to be re-radiated again, which is what happens.
Temperature of the Earth
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy transmitted by the Earth, under the black-body approximation:
T_E \, = T_S \sqrt{r_S\over 2 a_0 } \;
= 5780 \; {\rm K} \times \sqrt{696 \times 10^{6} \; {\rm m} \over 2 \times 149.598 \times 10^{9} \; {\rm m} }
\approx 279 \; {\rm K} \; ,
where TS is the temperature of the Sun, rS the radius of the Sun, and a0 is the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Thus resulting in an effective temperature of 6°C on the surface of the Earth.
In summary, the surface of the Sun is 21 times as hot as that of the Earth taken as a blackbody, and therefore it emits 190,000 times as much energy per square meter. The distance from the Sun to the Earth is 215 times the radius of the Sun, reducing the energy per square meter by a factor 46,000. Taking into account that the cross-section of a sphere is one fourth of its surface area, we see that there is equilibrium of approximately 342 W per m2 surface area, or 1,370 W per m2 cross-sectional area.
The above derivation is a rough approximation only, as it assumes the Earth is a perfect blackbody. The same equilibrium planetary temperature would result if the planet’s emissivity and absorptivity were reduced by some constant fraction at all wavelengths, since the incoming and outgoing powers would still match at the same temperature (this equilibrium temperature would no longer fit the definition of effective temperature, however).
The real Earth does not have this “gray-body” property. The terrestrial albedo is such that about 30% of incident solar radiation is reflected back into space; taking the reduced energy from the sun into account and computing the temperature of a black-body radiator that would emit that much energy back into space yields an “effective temperature”, consistent with the definition of that concept, of about 255 K.[3] However, compared to the 30% reflection of the Sun’s energy, a much larger fraction of long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere instead of being radiated away, by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.[4][5] Since the emissivity (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates), is reduced more than than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun’s radiation), the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates, not lower. The Earth’s actual average surface temperature is about 288 K, rather than 279 K, as a result; global warming is an increase in this equilibrium temperature due to human-caused additions to the greenhouse gasses.